Rosenfeld Susan. Encyclopedia of American Historical Documents

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

its teachings be lost upon you because you have heard it so

often. As a parabola pleases the eye more than a perpen-

dicular, so gracefulness is grateful to the aesthetic sense to

often outraged by awkward angularity. It is a duty that we

owe, to be as graceful as we can. We have all seen bows so

awkward, attitudes and movements so full of clumsiness,

that something of a moral turpitude has seemed to attach

to them. Who knows that there shall not come an age

when to outrage the taste—to agonize the delicate per-

ception—to impose discord upon the sensitive ear, shall

be in some way punishable as a grave offense? One of the

gifts, then, which society gladly receives, is an individual of

fine appearance, or grace of manner. “But I cannot bring

either of those,” is the plaintive cry from scores of aspiring

maidens.

Well, it has been often, yet not too often said, that

there is another kind of beauty which the soul seeks—a

higher kind, because more spiritual, hence more lasting

than the first, speaking of which a writer has said (describ-

ing one of the persons he met on a promenade down

Broadway): “There comes the ever welcome ugly face of a

beautiful soul!” All true culture at the last amounts to this.

Plato’s prayer we are still offering, in this Christian land,

“O make me beautiful within!” or, paraphrased by Milton:

What in me is dark illume;

What is low, raise and support.

To grow pure and good is in the power of all. That is

the greatest gift. But the subject is a wide one, and is made

familiar to us by every sermon to which we listen, by every

prayer we hear.

To be of highest value in society, a lady should have

some accomplishments—should be able, in some way, to

be a felt force in the entertainments of the hour. Can you

sing a song for us? Can you render poetry into music by a

fantasie of Thalberg, a sonata or a symphony by

Beethoven? Can you give us a pathetic ballad or a humor-

ous roundelay to the accompaniment of your harp or gui-

tar? If so, you are welcome, says Society, and we need you

hardly less than you need us. But, better than all, can you

talk? Are you quick at retort—fluent, fond of badinage?

Have you good descriptive powers? Are you kindly and

generous in your estimates of persons and their acts? Is

your language choice and free from provincial and inele-

gant words and phrases? Are you well read? If so, you are

a prize indeed. These questions must be all affirmatively

answered before one is a candidate for society’s highest

awards. For, though music is charming, though beauty and

grace are as rich in attractions as they are rare in actualiza-

tion, it remains true that conversational powers rank high-

est in the scale of social gifts.

It is the duty of all to do their best, even should they

carry their industry so far as to prepare bon-mots before-

hand, like Sheridan, or make memoranda of things suitable

to be said, upon their thumb nails, like one less famous

than the great wit. But all cannot talk well, though many

make a feint of doing so, poising themselves over a subject

like a humming-bird over a flower; dallying with ideas,

playing hide- and-seek with them, the hiding being for the

most part done by the ideas. But not so, your real Talker,

endowed for the purpose. He can take a subject, like a

flower, up by the roots, to look into its philosophy; or he

can merely descant upon its beauties, as he would call

attention to the coloring of a corolla, its size and outline—

or, if botanically inclined, its species, habits and uses; or he

can be so transcendental as give you what might be termed

the perfume of the subject, as he would direct your atten-

tion to the aroma of the flower. So that, as it seems, he can

give to society “small talk,” if the relations in which he is

placed demand it (his “relations,” for example, to a pout-

ing, wordless beauty of “sweet sixteen”); or he can be

descriptive, didactic, historic, polemic—what you will.

It is related to the credit of Socrates, that he said on

one occasion, as his apology for leaving a social circle:

“That which I know would not be suited to the occasion;

and what would be suited to the occasion, of that I am

ignorant.” But surely these words detract from his reputa-

tion as a conversationalist, and do not add to his fame as a

philosopher. Versatility may be named as the first qualifi-

cation of a good talker. Practice is requisite—tact—with

generosity enough to be a good listener also. Some persons

wait impatiently for their vis-a-vis to put in a few words,

and then make their next sentence tangent to his, touching

it at the point of departure only. To be a good listener is not

only one of the minor duties of morality, but is a sine qua

non in polite life. Monopoly of words is intolerable. Here,

then, in powers of conservation we have the highest gift

that one can exercise for the benefit of the circle in which

he moves. It can dispense with accessories, if need be. The

nimble, eloquent, versatile tongue alone is requisite. There

is no formula of invitation to the exercise of this gift, as,

“May I have the honor of conducting you to the talker’s

chair?” “Won’t you talk? Please do! Give us that imitation

of Dr. Johnson, with variations; that monologue a la

Coleridge. That’s in your best style, I have heard.” Or,

“Please favor us with your new bon mot, that original con-

ceit which is considered so amusing-” No, all is simple and

direct. The machinery is not cumbrous, it can be brought

into action at a moment’s warning. Grammatical propriety

has suggested the use of the pronoun in the third person,

masculine gender, while this gift has been treated of; but

its feminine correlative was all along intended. For with

her quickness, her fineness of taste and delicacy of per-

ception, woman has it in her power to be unrivaled as a

conversationalist; and in Madame Roland, whose elo-

quence, never heard beyond her own salon, helped to kin-

dle a revolution—Madame De Stael, whose powers were

972 ERA 5: Civil War and Reconstruction

feared by even Napoleon the Great—and Margaret Fuller

Ossoli, the best conversationalist of our own age and coun-

try, we have a few among the many names that might be

cited to prove that woman has done much already in this

department.

Another most desirable accomplishment, akin to that

last mentioned, is the ability to write a good letter—one

that shall be racy, genial, varied in contents—passing read-

ily from grave to gay, from lively to severe; though of this

last quality it is possible to have too much. Gray and

Charles Lamb furnish us with models of epistolary style, as

faultless as our literature can boast, unless we name Lady

Mary Wortley Montague or Hannah More, who, in some

valuable remarks upon the subject under consideration,

mentions as one cardinal virtue of a letter, that it be writ-

ten as one would talk; that it furnish a fair index to the

mind of the writer at the time of the writing, and that it be

not too long. The vivacious Gail Hamilton, in a recent

number of the “Atlantic,” gives some hints on letter-writ-

ing to the soldiers, that are most timely. At the mention of

the soldiers, our thoughts revert to the peculiar courtesies

that, as American women, we owe to them. We feel deep

regret, often, that we can do so little for our country, now

that her need for help is sorest. Yet not at small cost have

mothers, sisters and wives, stilled the cry of nature in their

breasts, and sent forth to the battle-field those who were

dearest to them, to encounter danger and privation, or

death itself perhaps, and in its most hideous forms. Not

from weak hearts come utterances like these, though the

burden of them has been often on woman’s lips during the

last two years:

O friend! by few is glory’s wreath attained, But death

or soon or late awaiteth all;

To fight in Freedom’s cause is something gained, And

nothing lost, to fall.

Under the heroism that they evince, lies the heart-

ache of a nation. By a thousand lonely hearth- stones,

tonight, the kneeling figure seen in the flickering fire-light

tells how well the soldier is remembered. And it is fitting

that we should be mindful of the heroes to whom we owe

the comfort and security, which this hour and this occasion

may index to our minds. Can “fourteen dollars a month,

with rations,” pay the hundreds of thousands who are at

this very moment making with their own brave breasts a

wall between us and our foes, compared with which ram-

part and bastion are as vacancy itself? For cannon balls

may batter down the strongest fortifications, but only

through millions of loyal hearts can the enemy attack the

homes and altars of the North. To the courage that faces

death on the field when he comes with sickle keen, and

reaps down rank after rank in his pitiless march; to the

heroism that shrinks not, when he steals in like a ghost, and

watches with hollow eyes the lonely couch, forsaken, save

by him; to the generosity that lays life, youth, ambition, on

the altar, we give but little in giving all we have—our

prayers, our tears, our sympathies and toil. While the

numerous Soldiers’ Aid Societies all over the North attest

the willing industry of the “loved ones at home”—while

the store-houses of that noble organization, the Sanitary

Commission, are supplied by offerings continually pouring

in from town and country—while in no prayer is the sol-

dier’s name forgotten—yet may it not be true, that of the

“small, sweet courtesies of life” we owe to him, we have

not thought enough? We would “gather up the fragments,

that nothing be lost.” Is it not doubtful, then, whether we

manifest enough real, personal interest in the soldiers

whom we meet—who are at home on furlough, or from

temporal disability—whom we see in church and drawing-

room, in car and omnibus—whom we do not see, as those

in the field, who were our friends at home, but who never

hear from us personally, now that they have joined the

army?

A soldier who had been for eighteen months in the

army of the Potomac without once leaving camp, except

for the march or the battle-field, brought home the report,

a few days since, that in his regiment the soldiers received

very few letters or messages from their friends. “A man’s

heart is tender when he is far from what is dearest to him,

and his life is in constant peril,” said the young soldier,

while his eyes grew luminous. Take an incident in point. A

soldier from your own State had not heard from home in

months, but at first had generously apologized for his

friends’ neglect by saying, “Our folks were never in the

habit of writing letters much, and then they don’t realize

how lonesome a fellow gets when he’s away from what he

likes best.” But as weeks passed, and no tidings came, he

grew moody and discontented, and at last became reckless,

saying, in soldier’s phrase: “Well, I don’t care; I can stand it

if they can.” At last he ceased to inquire for letters; bad

habits grew upon him. A secret mission was at this time

intrusted to a favorite officer, and a certain number of men

were to volunteer to go with him on a dangerous expedi-

tion. A flag, which was torn and discolored by several bat-

tles, in which it had always waved over victorious troops,

was brought out, and the men who were willing to volun-

teer were told to gather around it. Nearly all the friends of

the discontented soldier—those of his company—had

offered themselves. His special friend and comrade had

done so, urging him to go also. “No,” he said; “he was get-

ting tired, and wasn’t going to fight, unless he was obliged

to. Since nobody seemed to care about his life, he guessed

he’d look after it a little himself.” Soon after, a letter was

handed to him, superscribed in a graceful, lady’s hand. The

soldier’s eye kindled—he tore it open, but before he had

read a page, he snatched his gun, and rushed toward the

group of volunteers, singing.

Women’s Rights 973

Yes, we’ll rally round the flag, boys, rally once again, in

ringing tones, and thrusting the paper into his friend’s

hand, he said, “See there, Harry! what my sister says! ‘We

know you’ll never flinch; and proudly remember, when

others boast of the heroism of their friends, that our

brother is a soldier, too.’”

It is observed that after letters come from home, the

soldier is more thoughtful, oaths are less often on his lips,

cards are laid aside—the reason often being assigned: “My

mother wrote me that she knew I would be true to her and

to the teaching of my home. I was growing forgetful, but

her letter has reminded me.”

To write often to the soldiers is as much a duty, we

maintain, as to send delicacies for the hospital or books for

their idle hours. I know a sweet, Christian girl, whose cor-

respondence with the army is large enough to occupy a

good deal of her time, and whose sisterly letters to her sol-

dier friends are more highly prized by them than any other

of their possessions. Aside from the racy gossip of home

news—the friendly messages—the words of kind solici-

tude, and the quiet utterances of Christian faith, the very

delicacy of the letter—the fineness of its execution—the

dainty sheets of paper and corresponding envelope—the

faint perfume, perhaps, discernible about it—have all a

charm that will refine and elevate the soldier, and which

may prove to him a shield against the temptations of his

wild, abnormal life.

In the songs we sing, the soldier can not be too often

named. The “Evening Song to the Virgin,” “Meet me by

moon-light,” and “Comin thro’ the Rye,” make pleasant

music; but for our day, the “Battle Hymn of the Republic,”

“Rally round the Flag” and the “Picket Guard,” come nearer

to men’s hearts. I have in memory a scene that may be but

an example of what many of you have witnessed. A group of

graceful girls standing round a piano, singing, to the accom-

paniment played by the oldest sister, a touching song—an

outgrowth of the crisis of our times. Their brothers—with

the lover of one of them—were soldiers in the army of the

Cumberland. Remembering this, it was doubly affecting to

listen to the clear tones of the air, with the mournful alto

running through them, in the chorus beginning:

Brave boys are they; Gone at their country’s call; And

yet, and yet we cannot forget That many brave boys must

fall.

We have read of the power of their sublime “Marseil-

laise” over the French soldiery. At the time of the Revolu-

tion, it was terribly shown. The principle seen there in its

grander development we may trace to advantage in the life

of every day. For the fires of patriotism reach white heat

when music lends to glowing words her potency.

Let us think, then, of the many little things which,

along with the great, we may do to show that our hearts

are with those who are fighting battles, winning victories

for us. “Why did you shake hands with young Dufrees at

the church door, after service?” asked a fastidious friend.

“Because he is a soldier,” returned Arabella, with the

proper emphasis. The recognition more cordially given to

our soldier friends than to others—the acknowledgment

in frank, ingenuous manner of our great debt—the inter-

est freely expressed for their comfort—the enthusiastic

praise of their courage in trying emergencies—all these

are inexpressibly grateful to a soldier’s heart, and will not

be misinterpreted or misapplied. “We are proud of all our

army,” said a beautiful girl to a young lieutenant, who had

distinguished himself in a recent engagement; “but we

glory in the—Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteers. They

never fail. And then, we know so many members of that

regiment; they went from our own town, and we watch

their career with great interest.” His comrades and him-

self deserved her praise. So the young soldier knew; but

he answered modestly, while his eyes were bright with

gratitude, “If our friends at home speak thus concerning

us, we will deserve their praise in future—not to speak of

the past.”

Recently, on a train from the east, the passengers

were leaving a car, upon arriving in this city. Lying across

the tops of several seats was a soldier’s cot, and upon it a

white-faced boy—somebody’s darling—going home to

die. His look told that. The passengers all gazed at him

with attention, some with sympathy, some with curiosity in

their eyes. Last of all, came a lady of noble face and mien.

She stopped a moment, her eyes filled with tears. “God

bless you! dear boy,” she said, “for helping us!” The youth’s

face flushed with pleasure. “Thank, you,” he said; “I did

not think my life too much to give, since the country

needed me.”

It is in our power to speak many words which shall

drop like balm into hearts bruised and bleeding. Through

thoughtlessness, let not one remain unsaid. Mourners are

multiplying among us—the sable garments of the

bereaved we may see on every hand. The end is not yet.

We are passing on into the cloud. The eye of God alone

can pierce its darkness. Let us weep for the “unreturning

brave.” Let us keep our kindliest words for those who fight

our battles; remembering how graceful will be our sympa-

thy to them, for it has been truly said:

O soldier! to thine early grave Thy love and valor

bearing, The bravest are the tenderest, The loving are the

daring.

Source:

James Andrews and David Zarefsky, eds. American Voices: Sig-

nificant Speeches in American History, 1640–1945, Reading,

Mass.: Longman, 1989, pp. 236-233.

974 ERA 5: Civil War and Reconstruction

John Todd, Woman’s Rights, 1867

Pamphlet written in 1867 by the Reverend John Todd to

demonstrate why women cannot be independent of men. Todd

argues that although women have strong minds, they simply

lack the physical stamina to compete with men in any field,

from the sciences to literature to the arts, including playing the

piano, an instrument that men have “invented, manufactured,

and bought, and brought home” expressly for the woman.

He develops his argument by looking at contemporary

issues regarding women’s rights, such as dress, voting, wages,

and education. Todd believes that a woman’s place is in the

home, where she has the power to shape a man’s character. In

his belief, a woman who votes, or earns wages, or does any-

thing outside of the sphere of the household is trying “to be a

man”; a woman who attempts such things ruins society and

transgresses God’s design.

These arguments are not so different from those offered in

the 1970s when women again asserted their rights. It was not

until the 1970s, for example, that women began attending

medical and law school and holding office in significant num-

bers. Interestingly, the notion of equal wages or comparable

wages raised by Todd still resonates in the 21st century.

The complete pamphlet is in

Landmark Documents in

American History

, www.factsonfile.com.

________________________

_______________________

Introduction

The tendency of our generation to break up old associa-

tions, and to be emancipated from the beliefs of our

fathers, is so strong that many would rather feel relieved to

have you convince them that they sprang from a race of

apes and gorillas. This is among the male sex. Among the

other sex, there is a wide-spread uneasiness,—a discon-

tentment with woman’s lot, impatient of its burdens, rebel-

lious against its sufferings, an undefined hope of

emancipation from the ordinary lot of humanity by some

great revolution, so that her condition will be entirely

changed! This feeling crops out in publicly ridiculing mar-

riage, dwelling on its evils, raving about the tyranny of men,

crying for the “emancipation of woman,” getting up

Women’s Conventions, and propagating theories, weak,

foolish, and criminal. The demand is that we shall acknowl-

edge our abominable cruelty exercised towards woman

since her first creation;—that she shall be allowed hereafter

to be in all respects equal to man,—shall be educated as he

is, enter the same pursuits that he does, receive the same

wages,-occupy the same posts and professions,—wield the

same influence, and, in a word, be independent of man,—

far more independent of him than he ever was or can be of

woman. This undefined feeling is not confined to the

strong-minded women, who clamor and disgust their sex

and ours in demanding “women’s rights.” . . . It is to this

class of the sisterhood I am wishing to address myself at this

time. Will you allow me then to come and sit down by your

side, making no claim to superiority, but sincerely wishing

to aid you in coming to most important conclusions?

WOMAN’S RIGHTS. EQUALITY OF THE SEXES.

On this question I shall waste no words. Nobody pretends

that the sexes are equal in weight, in height, or in bodily

strength. The bodies of the two sexes seem to have been

planned for different ends. As to the mind, I have no diffi-

culty in admitting that the mind of woman is equal to

ours,-nay, if you please, superior. It is quicker, more flexi-

ble, more elastic. I certainly have never seen boys learn

languages or mathematics, up to a certain point, as fast or

as easy as some girls. Woman’s intuitions also are far better

than ours. She reads character quicker, comes to conclu-

sions quicker, and if I must make a decision on the

moment, I had much rather have the woman’s decision

than man’s. She has intuitions given her for her own pro-

tection which we have not. She has a delicacy of taste to

which we can lay no claim. “Why, then,” my lady reader

will say, “ why can’t we be independent of man?” for this is

the gist of the whole subject. I reply, you can’t, for two rea-

sons; first, God never designed you should, and secondly,

your own deep instincts are in the way. God never de-

signed that woman should occupy the same sphere as man,

because he has given her a physical organization so re-

fined and delicate that it can never bear the strain which

comes upon the rougher, coarser nature of man. He has

hedged her in by laws which no desires or efforts can alter.

We, sons of dust, move slower; we creep, where you bound

to the head of the stairs at a single leap. And now bear with

me, and keep good-natured, while I show you, what you,

dear ladies, cannot do, and God don’t ask you to do.

1. You cannot invent. . . . I suppose this power was

denied you, lest it should take you out of your most impor-

tant sphere . . .

2. You cannot compete with men in a long course of

mental labor. Your delicate organization never has and

never can bear the study by which you can become New-

tons, La Places, or Bowditches in mathematics or astron-

omy. . . . So of painting and sculpture. . . .

But, you will perhaps say, “we have never had a fair

chance-a fair fight in the field. We have been held down by

prejudice, and tyranny, and public opinion against us, and

all that.” Suppose it be so, fair one, there is one field you

have had to yourself, and nobody has lifted against you one

finger. I mean that, for the last half century, we, cruel men,

have invented, manufactured, and bought, and brought

home, the piano, and you have had it all to yourselves.

What is the result? It is, that the master performers, and

teachers, and musicians, are men. . . . In none of these

Women’s Rights 975

departments can woman compete with man. Not because

her immortal mind is inferior,—far from it,—but because

her bodily organization cannot endure the pressure of con-

tinued and long labor as we can. . . . In none of these

departments can woman compete with man. Not because

her immortal mind is inferior,—far from it,—but because

her bodily organization cannot endure the pressure of con-

tinued and long labor as we can. . . .

Woman’s Sphere

The design of God in creating woman was to complete

man-a one-sided being without her. Together they make a

complete, perfect unit. She has a mission-no higher one

could be given her-to be the mother, and the former of all

character of the human race. For the first, most important

earthly period of life, the race is committed to her, for

about twelve years, almost entirely. The human family is

what she makes them. She is the queen of the home, its

centre, its light and glory. The home, the home is the foun-

tain of all that is good on earth. If she desires a higher,

loftier, nobler trust than this, I know not where she can

find it. Mother, wife, daughter, sister, are the tenderest,

most endearing words in language. Our mothers train us,

and we owe everything to them. Our wives perfect all that

is good in us, and no man is ashamed to say he is indebted

to his wife for his happiness, his influence, and his charac-

ter, if there is anything noble about him. Woman is the

highest, holiest, most precious gift to man. Her mission

and throne is the family, and if anything is withheld that

would make her more efficient, useful, or happy in that

sphere, she is wronged, and has not her “rights.”

What Her “Rights” Are

If woman steps out of her sphere, and demands to be and

to do what men do, to enter political life, to enter the pro-

fessions, to wrestle with us for office and employments and

gains, she must understand that she will have to take the

low prices as well as the high places of life. She will not be

allowed to be a man and be treated with the tenderness

due to women. If she goes to Congress, she must also go to

the heavy drudgery of earth.

I claim then for her, that it is her “right” to be treated

with the utmost love, respect, honor, and consideration in

her sphere. I claim that it is her “right” to have every pos-

sible aid and advantage to fulfill her mission. I claim that

she has a “right” to be let alone there, and not be teased,

or flattered, or wheedled out for her place, and made to

believe what can never be.

She has a “right” then to be exempted from certain

things which men must endure. It is her privilege and her

right. She ought to be exempted from the hard drudgery of

earth. She ought not to be made a sailor, to hang on the

yard-arms,—to chase and kill and try up whales,—to be a

surgeon, to pull teeth, cut off legs, or cut out tumors,-to go

into the mines, and dig ore and coal,—to burn over the

smelting-furnace. She ought not to be compelled to be a

barber, a boot-black, to carry hods of brick and mortar up

the ladder,—to be a soap boiler, to groom horses, dig

canals, [Etc.] Has she not a natural right to enter any and

all employments as well as men? Suppose we allow it, and

admit that she has a natural right to wear jack-boots and

spurs, horse-pistols and a sword, and be a complete soldier,

and a “natural” right to sing bass and beat a bass-drum, and

that men have a “natural” right to wear petticoats, dress

with low necks, short sleeves, wear pink slippers with paper

soles,—but, would it be wise to do so? Dear sisters, you

can’t be good wives, mothers, and crowns of your families,

and go into these things—can you?

Dress

Some have tried to become semi-men by putting on the

Bloomer dress. Let me tell you in a word why it can never

be done. It is the: woman, robed and folded in her long

dress, is beautiful. She walks gracefully. . . . If she attempts

to run, the charm is gone. . . . So long as she is thus

clothed, there is just enough of mystery about woman to

challenge admiration, and almost reverence.

Take off the robes, and put on pants and show the

limbs, and grace and mystery are all gone. And yet, to be

like a man, you must doff your own dress and put on ours.

In doing it, you lose more than I can tell. No! Ladies want

or respect, and admiration, and reverence too much ever

to lay aside their appropriate dress. Their very instincts

make them safe here.

Voting

A great hue and cry is set up about the right of women to

vote, and the cruelty of denying them this right. Plainly

this is merely a civil and not a natural right. Minors, for-

eigners, and idiots are denied it. The property of the

world, for the most part is, and ever has been, and must be,

earned by men. It is useful only to support and educate

families-our own, or those of others. It would seem best,

then, for those who, at any hazard or labor, earn the prop-

erty, to select the rulers, and have this responsibility. . . .

Moreover, there is something so unseemly in having

woman wading in the dirty waters of politics, draggling and

wrangling around the ballot-boxes, e.g., mingling with the

mobs and rowdies in New York city, that I wonder she ever

thinks of it. But “she is a widow, and has property, and pays

taxes,-why not vote?” Being a widow, or fatherless, is a mis-

fortune. But the husband or father earned the property,

and voted as long as he lived. It may be a misfortune that

the property does not now vote, but not so great a misfor-

976 ERA 5: Civil War and Reconstruction

tune to the world as to have the sex go out of their sphere

and enter into political life. Indeed, it is allowed that vot-

ing is only the stepping-stone to civil office. But it is step-

ping out of her sphere, and the moment you do that, you

put a few of the sex into office, but depress and degrade at

least a thousand where you elevate one. If a few go up, the

many go down.

Wages

There is great complaint made because justice is not done

in compensating labor. . . . But bear in mind that God has

put the labor and the duty on men to support the families-

wives and children. The man is recreant and guilty if he

does not do that; and to do it, and bear the responsibility,

he must receive wages accordingly. Is it then so very unjust

that women, who has no such responsibility, does not

receive so high wages? You blame employers, and demand

that they give females more—a vain demand so long as

there are thousands ready to underbid them and do the

work cheaper. The demand will pay in proportion to the

supply, and no legislation or human power can alter this,

Woman can’t endure such heavy toil; she can’t toil as many

hours year after year; she expects to continue the employ-

ment but a short time; and the result is, she has to take for

her labor the market price for that commodity. But there

is a wonderful reason for this great supply, at our day, to

which I will allude.

* * *

Woman’s Education

I lately took up a religious paper, in which no less than six

“Female Colleges” were advertised and puffed. And we

are getting our legislatures to charter new “Female Col-

leges,” and we are boasting how we are about to intro-

duce all the studies and the curriculum of the colleges for

men, and we are to put our daughters through them, and

educate just as we do men. The thing can never be done.

For forty years I have been connected with female semi-

naries, and have carefully watched their training and

results. I say deliberately, that the female has mind

enough, talent enough, to go through a complete college

course, but her physical organization, as a general thing,

will never admit of it. I think the great danger of our day

is forcing the intellect of woman beyond what her physi-

cal organization will possibly bear. . . . We Americans

belong to the Over-do family. We want to fish the brook

dry if we fish at all. We mount hobbies easily because we

are “spry”; and now that we have taken woman in hand,

we are in danger of education [educating?] her into the

grave; taking her out of her own beautiful, honored

sphere, and making her an hermaphrodite, instead of

what God made her to be.

The root of great error of our day is, that woman is to

be made independent and self-supporting—precisely what

she never can be, because God never designed she should

be. Her support, her dignity, her beauty, her honor, and

happiness lie in her dependence as wife, mother, and

daughter. Any other theory is rebellion against God’s law of

the sexes, against marriage, which it assails in its funda-

mental principles, and against the family organization, the

holiest thing that is left from Eden.

O woman! your worst enemy if he who scouts at mar-

riage; who tries to flatter you with honeyed words about

your rights, while he sneers in his own circle, boasting that

“it is cheaper to buy milk than to keep a cow”; who could

cruelly lift you out of your sphere, and try to reverse the

very laws of God; who tries to make you believe that you

will find independence, wealth, and renown in man’s

sphere, when your only safety and happiness is in patiently,

lovingly, and faithfully performing the duties and enacting

the relations of your own sphere.

Women of my country! beloved and honored in your

own sphere, can’t see that man, rough, stern, cold, almost

nerveless, was made to be the head of human society; and

woman, patient, quick, sensitive, loving, and gentle, is the

heart of the world? where she may rule and move the

world to an extent second to no human power, and where

she becomes a blessing greater than we can ever acknowl-

edge, because it is greater than we can measure!

* * *

Source:

Library of Congress. Rare Book and Special Collections Division.

National American Woman Suffrage Association Collection.

Proceedings of the First Anniversary

of the American Equal Rights

Association, 1867

Transcript of a phonograph recording by H. M. Parkhurst of the

proceedings of the first annual meeting of the American Equal

Rights Association, held in New York City on at the Church of

the Puritans, May 9 and 10, 1867. The association was formed

to work toward gaining the vote for African Americans and

women. The transcript includes speeches delivered by promi-

nent suffrage activists; the organization’s constitution (placed

first here, although it follows the sessions in the transcript); res-

olutions; letters of support (not reproduced here); and a list of

finances (not reproduced here). The association resolved to

support only activity that would lead to the emancipation of

every adult citizen. Much of the discussion, including that

which is reproduced here, concerned whether the group

Women’s Rights 977

should refuse to promote the franchise for black men until all

women were also included. Black men received the vote

through the Fifteenth Amendment. Eventually, some of the

leaders in the fight for women’s suffrage used as an argument

the fact that “unqualified” or “inferior” black men could vote

while white women could not.

The same year that the Association was founded, Eliza-

beth Cady Stanton ran for a seat in Congress from the Eighth

Congressional District in New York. The letter indicates that

Stanton’s candidacy was meant to highlight the absurdity of

refusing women the vote. She stated that she was a candidate

because, although women were prohibited from voting, they

were technically eligible to hold elective office.

The entire transcript of the association meeting and

appended documents is in the on-line Landmark Documents in

American History, www.factsonfile.com.

________________________

_______________________

Constitution of the American

Equal Rights Association

Preamble

Whereas, By the war, society is once more resolved into

its original elements, and in the reconstruction of our gov-

ernment we again stand face to face with the broad ques-

tion of natural rights, all associations based on special

claims for special classes are too narrow and partial for the

hour; Therefore, from the baptism of this second revolu-

tion-purified and exalted through suffering-seeing with a

holier vision that the peace, prosperity and perpetuity of

the Republic rest on Equal Rights to all we, to-day,

assembled in our Eleventh National Woman’s Rights Con-

vention, bury the Woman in the Citizen, and our organiza-

tion in that of the American Equal Rights Association.

* * *

Done in the City of New York on the tenth day of May, in

the year 1866.

[Announcement of Meeting:]

The object of this Association is to “secure Equal

Rights to all American citizens, especially the Right of Suf-

frage, irrespective of race, color or sex.” American Democ-

racy has interpreted the Declaration of Independence in

the interest of slavery, restricting suffrage and citizenship

to a white male minority. The black man is still denied the

crowning right of citizenship, even in the nominally free

States, though the fires of civil war have melted the chains

of chattelism, and a hundred battle-fields attest his

courage and patriotism. Half our population are disfran-

chised on the ground of sex; and though compelled to obey

the law and taxed to support the government, they have no

voice in the legislation of the country. This Association,

then, has a mission to perform, the magnitude and impor-

tance of which cannot be over-estimated. The recent war

has unsettled all our governmental foundations. Let us see

that in their restoration, all these unjust proscriptions are

avoided. Let Democracy be defined anew, as the govern-

ment of the people, AND THE WHOLE PEOPLE. Let

the gathering, then, at this anniversary be, in numbers and

character, worthy, in some degree, the demands of the

hour. The black man, even the black soldier, is yet but half

emancipated, nor will he be, until full suffrage and citizen-

ship, are secured to him in the Federal Constitution. Still

more deplorable is the condition of the black woman; and

legally, that of the white woman is no better!

* * *

[May 9, 10 a.m.] SECRETARY’S REPORT

Susan B. Anthony said: It is my duty to present to

you at this time a written Report of all that has been done

by this Equal Rights Association during the past year; but

those of us who have been active in this movement, have

been so occupied in doing the work, that no one has found

time to chronicle the progress of events. With but half a

dozen live men and women, to canvass the State of New

York, to besiege the Legislature and the delegates to the

Constitutional Convention with tracts and petitions, to

write letters and send documents to every State Legisla-

ture that has moved on this question, to urge Congress to

its highest duty in the reconstruction, by both public and

private appeals, has been a work that has taxed every

energy and dollar at our command.

Money being the vital power of all movements-the

Wood and water of the engine-and, as our work through

the past winter has been limited only by the want of it,

there is no difficulty in reporting on finance. The receipts

of our Association, during the year, have amounted to

$4,096 78; the expenditures, for lectures and conventions,

for printing and circulating tracts and documents, to

$4,714 11—leaving us in debt $617 33.

The Secretary then rapidly rehearsed the signs of

progress. She spoke of the discussion in the United States

Senate on the Suffrage bill, through three entire days,

resulting in a vote in a nine Senators in favor of extending

suffrage to the women as well as black men of the District

of Columbia; of the section of the Legislatures of Kansas

and Wisconsin to strike the words “white male” from their

Constitutions; of the discussions and minority votes in the

Legislatures of Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio and

Missouri; of the addresses Elizabeth Cady Stanton and

Lucy Stone before the Judiciary Committees of the New

York and New Jersey Legislatures. . . . In Kansas they are

planning mass conventions, to be held throughout the State

through September and October; and they urge us to send

out at least a dozen able men and women, with a hundred

thousand tracts, to help them educate the people into the

978 ERA 5: Civil War and Reconstruction

grand idea of universal suffrage, that they may carry the

State at the November election. . . . Two of our agents, Lucy

Stone and Henry B. Blackwell, are already in Kansas, speak-

ing in all her towns and cities-in churches, school-houses,

barns and the open air; travelling night and day. . . .

The President (Mrs. Mott ) said: . . . My age and fee-

ble health have precluded my engaging actively engaged in

the cause, other than in a very limited way. . . . Being a

native of the island of Nantucket, where women were

thought something of, and had some connection with the

business arrangements of life, as well as with their domes-

tic homes, I grew up so thoroughly imbued with woman’s

rights that it was the most important question of my life

from a very early day. I hail this more public movement for

its advocacy, and have been glad that I had strength

enough to co-operate to some extent. . . .

Address of Elizabeth Cady Stanton

In considering the question of suffrage, there are two start-

ing points: one, that this right is a gift of society, in which

certain men, having inherited this privilege from some

abstract body and abstract place, have now the right to

secure it for themselves and their privileged order to the

end of time. This principle leads logically to governing

races, classes, families; and, in direct antagonism to our

idea of self-government, takes us back to monarchies

despotisms, to a experiment that has been tried over and

over again, 6,000 years, and uniformly failed. . . . Ignoring

this point of view as untenable and anti-republican, and

taking the opposite, that suffrage is a natural right—as nec-

essary to man under government, for the protection of per-

son and property, as are air and motion to life—we hold

talisman by which to show the right of all classes to the bal-

lot, to remove every obstacle, to answer every objection, to

point out the tyranny of every qualification to the free

exercise of this sacred right. To discuss the question of suf-

frage for women and negroes, as women and negroes, and

not as citizens of a republic, implies that there are some

reasons for demanding this right for these classes that do

not apply to “white males.”

. . . As in the war, freedom was the key-note of victory,

so now is universal suffrage the key-note of reconstruction.

* * *

When woman understands the momentous interests that

depend on the ballot, she will make it her first duty to edu-

cate every American boy and girl into the idea that to vote is

the most sacred act of citizenship-a religious duty not to be

discharged thoughtlessly, selfishly or corruptly; but consci-

entiously, remembering that, in a republican government, to

every citizen is entrusted the interests of the nation. . . .

* * *

Never, until woman is an independent, self-sustaining

force in society, can she take her true, exalted position as

the mother, the educator of the race. Never, as a depen-

dent on his wish, his will, his bounty to be sheltered, fed

and clothed, will man recognize in woman an equal moral

power in the universe of mind. The same principle that

governed plantation life, governs the home. The master

could quote law and gospel for his authority over the slave,

so can the husband still.

* * *

. . . For this stage of civilization, I would draw a line half

way between our poets . . . and place woman neither at

man’s feet nor above his head, but on an even platform by

his side.

Susan B. Anthony, in behalf of the Executive

Committee, reported the following resolutions for con-

sideration:

* * *

Resolved, That the present claim for “manhood suffrage,”

masked with the words “equal,” “impartial,” “universal,” is

a cruel abandonment of the slave women of the South, a

fraud on the tax-paying women of the North, and an insult

to the civilization of the nineteenth century.

Resolved, That the proposal to reconstruct our gov-

ernment on the basis of manhood suffrage, which

emanated from the Republican party and has received the

recent sanction of the American Anti-Slavery Society, is

but a continuation of the old system of class and caste leg-

islation, always cruel and proscriptive in itself, and ending

in all ages in national degradation and revolution.

* * *

Mr. C. C. Burleigh:

* * *

It is said also, that if you allow women to vote, the logic of

your argument will go further and require that women

shall be voted for, and they may chance to receive votes

enough for election; and they may even go to the State

Legislature or to Congress. Suppose such a thing should

happen, would a city which is represented in the Congress

of the United States by John Morrissey and Fernando

Wood, have reason to blush if by some singular good for-

tune she should chance to be represented by Elizabeth

Cady Stanton? (Applause.) Would the Halls of Congress

suffer any loss of dignity, or any loss of efficiency, even if

John Morrissey’s place should the vacated to make room

for Mrs. Stanton, or if some Pennsylvania Democrat

should be allowed to remain at home while Lucretia Mott

occupied his chair? (Applause.) . . .

Women’s Rights 979

Somebody says that “the child is father to the man.”

You know who govern the children. Who governed you

when you were children? Is it not as safe that woman

should govern in the halls of national legislation as in the

family and in the school? You will find in hundreds of

schools, governed a few years ago by men, only women for

teachers to-day. I remember that in a building which con-

tained some three hundred pupils, the last man employed

as a teacher, was an assistant teacher under the supervision

of a woman as principal; a woman who has vindicated her

right to the place by her admirable administration, and her

admirable adaption to the business of teaching, so that she

has become, as it were, a fixture in that schoolhouse. And

that is only one case among many. And if woman excels in

government in those spheres in which she has had an

opportunity to prove her ability, it is at least safe to try the

experiment further.

* * *

We have heard the argument over and over again that

women should leave to man the counting-house, the work-

bench, and all the duties supposed peculiarly to appertain

to masculine humanity, and should attend to “household”

matters. If, then, suffrage is a household matter, why

should not woman attend to it, in her feminine capacity, as

peculiarly within her domestic province, and relieve man

from the interruption of his appropriate duties?

* * *

I think it is quite possible, from the education the people

have had so long, that in the first instance those who go to

the polls will be the two extremes, the best women and the

worst, and that the great body of the intermediate class will

stay away, partly because not thoroughly and clearly con-

vinced of their right and duty, and still more because they

have not yet summoned up courage enough to face the ter-

rible sneer which our friend has told us is more fearful

than the ballot. Possibly we should see at the polls, at first,

those who are with us on the platform of this Association,

on the one hand, and on the other extreme, the vilest who

can be brought up to serve the purposes of any demagogue

unscrupulous enough to use them. I do not by any means

admit that this is certain. I have my doubts about it. But

suppose it to be so; what will be the consequence? If the

better element were not sufficient to neutralize the worst

at once, in which case no evil would result, the middle class

of women would have the duty pressed right home upon

them to give their influence and their votes to counteract

the evil tendency of the action of the more degraded and

ignorant of their own sex; just a we see in great emergen-

cies, inn critical periods in political affairs, multitudes of

men are drawn to the polls from the exigency of the time,

who ordinarily do not go. . . .

* * *

Stephen S. Foster. —Will you give us the evidence that

the statement that the women of this country do not want

the ballot is not true? I should be glad to believe that; but

in may experience the worst opposition to the progress of

Woman’s Right has come from woman herself. . . . I wish

it were not so. I hope I am mistaken. . . .

Rev. S. J May. —I should like to have that question

settled, so far as the women present are concerned. Will as

many of you as will vote when the right is awarded to you,

please to manifest it by rising.

Nearly the whole of the ladies present immediately

arose. Indeed, the reporter, from the platform, could not

see a single lady who retained to seat.

* * *

Evening Session:

* * *

Mrs. Ernestine Rose:

* * *

I have sometimes been asked, even by sensible men, “If

woman had the elective franchise, would she got to the

polls to mix with rude men?” Well, would I go to the

church to mix with rude men? And should not the ballot-

box be as respectable, and as respected, and as sacred as

the church? Aye, infinitely more so, because it is of greater

importance. Men can pray in secret, but must vote in pub-

lic. (Applause.) Hence the ballot, of the two, ought to be

the most respected; and it would be if women were once

there; but it never will be until they are there. . . .

May 10, Morning Session:

* * *

George T. Downing wished to know whether he had

rightly understood that Mrs. Stanton and Mrs. Mott were

opposed to the enfranchisement of the colored man,

unless the ballot should also be accorded to woman at the

same time.

Mrs. Stanton said:

All history proves that despotisms, whether of one

man or millions, cannot stand, and there is no use of wast-

ing centuries of men and means in trying that experiment

again. Hence I have no faith or interest in any reconstruc-

tion on that old basis. To say that politicians always do one

thing at a time is no reason why philosophers should not

enunciate the broad principles that underlie that one thing

and a dozen others. We do not take the right step for this

hour in demanding suffrage for any class; as a matter of

principle I claim it for all.

980 ERA 5: Civil War and Reconstruction

But in a narrow view of the question as a matter of

feeling between classes, when Mr. Downing puts the ques-

tion to me, are you willing to have the colored man enfran-

chised before the woman, I say, no; I would not trust him

with all my rights; degraded, oppressed himself, he would

be more despotic with the governing power than even our

Saxon rulers are. I desire that we go into the kingdom

together, for individual and national safety demand that

not another man be enfranchised without the woman by

his side.

* * *

Mrs. Stanton said she demanded the ballot for all. She

asked for reconstruction on the basis of self-government;

but if we are to have further class legislation, she thought

the wisest order of enfranchisement was to take the edu-

cated classes first. If women are still to be represented by

men, then I say let only the highest type of manhood stand

at the helm of State. But if all men are to vote, black and

white, lettered and unlettered, washed and unwashed, the

safety of the nation as well as the interests of woman that

we outweigh this incoming tide of ignorance, poverty and

vice, with the virtue, wealth and education of the women

of the country.

With the black man you have no new force in govern-

ment—it is manhood still; but with the enfranchisement of

woman, you have a new and essential element of life and

power. . . .

* * *

Abby Kelley Foster:

. . . Were the negro and woman in the same civil, social

and political status to-day, I should respond eye, with all

my heart, to this sentiment. What are the facts? . . . He is

treated as a slave to-day in the several districts of the

South. Without wages, without family rights, whipped

and beaten by thousands, given up to the most horrible

outrages, without that protection which his value as prop-

erty formerly gave him. Again, he is liable, without far-

ther guarantees, to be plunged into peonage, serfdom or

even into chattel slavery. Have we any true sense of jus-

tice, are we not dead to the sentiment of humanity if we

shall wish to postpone his security against present woes

and future enslavement till woman shall obtain political

rights?

* * *

Sojourner Truth was called for and said: I am glad to

see that men are getting their rights, but I want women

to get theirs, and while the water is stirring I will step into

the pool. Now that there is a great stir about colored

men’s getting their rights is the time for women to step in

and have theirs. I am sometimes told that “Women ain’t

fit to vote. Why, don’t you know that a woman had seven

devils in her: and do you suppose a woman is fit to rule

the nation?” Seven devils ain’t no account; a man had a

legion in him. (Great laughter.) The devils didn’t know

where to go; and so they asked that they might go into the

swine. They thought that was as good a place as they

came out from. (Renewed laughter.) They didn’t ask to go

into sheep-no, into the hog; that was the selfishest beast;

and man is so selfish that he has got women’s rights and

his own too, and yet he won’t give women their rights. He

keeps them all to himself. If a woman did have seven dev-

ils, see how lovely she was when they were cast out, how

much she loved Jesus, how she followed him. When the

devils were gone out of the man, he wanted to follow

Jesus, too, but Jesus told him to go home, and didn’t seem

to want to have him round. And when the men went to

look for Jesus at the sepulchre they didn’t stop long

enough to find out whether he was there or not; but

Mary stood there and waited, and said to him, thinking it

was the gardener, “Tell me where they have laid him and

I will carry him away.” See what a spirit there is. Just so

let women be true to this object, and the truth will reign

triumphant.

* * *

Mr. E. H. Heywood [Boston]: . . . It was said that the

women on this platform were coquetting with the

Democrats [who oppose Negro suffrage]. Why shouldn’t

they? The Democrats take the true position. He had heard

a Democrat say, “Talk of negro suffrage, and then refuse

women the right to vote. All I have to say is, when the

negroes of Connecticut go to the polls, my wife and daugh-

ter will go, too.”

Evening session:

* * *

Miss Anthony announced that they would have another

opportunity to hear Sojourner Truth, and, for the informa-

tion of those who did not know, she would say that

Sojourner was for forty years a slave in this State. She is not

a product of the barbarism of South Carolina, but of the

barbarism of New York, and one of her fingers was

chopped off by her cruel master in a moment of anger.

* * *

Source:

“Proceedings of the First Anniversary of the American Equal

Rights Association.” Library of Congress, Rare Book and

Special Collections Division, National American Woman

Suffrage Association Collection.

Women’s Rights 981